JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. This writ petition is arising out of a proceeding initiated under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953"). 2. The dispute relates to Khata No. 2 consisting of 16 plots, area 3.447 acres and Khata No. 20 consisting of plot no. 724/3, area 295 Kadi, situate in Village Nebuwadeeh, Tehsil Burhanpur, District Azamgarh. 3. During basic year petitioner's father, namely, Baleshar was recorded in Khata No. 2 to the extent of half share and in Khata No. 20, he was recorded as a sole tenant. 4. Objections were filed before Assistant Consolidation Officer, where a compromise took place between parties and accordingly order dated 14.08.1970 was passed. The order states as under: 5. Against aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by Bansraj, i.e., Respondent-7 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Another appeal was filed by father of petitioner only in respect of plot no. 724/3. Both appeals were dismissed vide order dated 24.12.1971. 6. Against aforesaid order two revisions were filed, one by Bansraj and another by father of petitioner, which were allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.03.1974 and matter was remitted back to Consolidation Officer to decide afresh. 7. On remand, objections were filed on behalf of petitioner's father before Consolidation Officer alongwith documentary evidence in order to prove his title over land in dispute as well as possessory title by filing khasra extract, irrigation slip etc. Consolidation Officer after considering entire material on record as well as oral and documentary evidence rejected objections of respondents vide order dated 13.07.1977 and held that petitioner's father will remain to the extent of half share and contesting-respondents would get 1/6 each as it was recorded in basic year Khatauni. Relevant part of the order is mentioned here in after: (Emphasis added) 8. The aforesaid order passed by Consolidation Officer was challenged by way of filing appeal by contesting-respondents which was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.1979 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter: (Emphasis supplied) 9. Against aforesaid orders passed by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was preferred by respondents which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 30.04.2001 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: (Emphasis supplied) 10. Against aforesaid orders passed by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was preferred by respondents which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 30.04.2001 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: (Emphasis supplied) 10. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Murtaza Ali, Advocate for petitioner, submitted that findings returned by Consolidation Officer and Appellate Authority were not set aside by Revisional Authority still revision was erroneously allowed. He further submitted that impugned order was an order of reversal, therefore, there must be specific finding to reject the findings returned by lower authorities, however, it does not reflect from impugned order. Revisional Authority has not considered the documentary and oral evidence submitted on behalf of petitioner. 11. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in accordance with United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, Bhumidhari Sanad was issued by depositing ten times of rent. Bhumidhari Sanad, being a document issued by Assistant Collector could not be disputed at a belated stage in absence of any contrary evidence. 12. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that original Khatauni of the year 1359 was perused by Consolidation Officer and entries were found genuine. Respondent, Kavleshwar has accepted that petitioner's father Baleshar was of his family. There is no ground to disbelieve his statement. Learned counsel also submitted that when an authority renders a judgment of reversal it must consider all material on record. Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 have not challenged the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, therefore, it has allowed partly qua to these respondents. 13. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on Surendra Singh and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 194 ; Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel and others, AIR 1964 SC 1099 ; S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 1995 SC 1607 ; and, Ram Kripal @ Chirkut and another, 2012(2) ADJ 13 . 14. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that Khatauni of 1356 F and 1359 F were genuine and could be challenged on ground of fraud only, but no such ground was pleaded. and others v. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 1995 SC 1607 ; and, Ram Kripal @ Chirkut and another, 2012(2) ADJ 13 . 14. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that Khatauni of 1356 F and 1359 F were genuine and could be challenged on ground of fraud only, but no such ground was pleaded. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on Wali Mohammad (Deceased by L.Rs.) v. Ram Surat and others, AIR 1989 SC 2296 as well as that the findings returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse, therefore, writ jurisdiction could be invoked. He placed reliance on Dharamraj and others v. Chhitan and others, 2006(12) SCC 349 and State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw and another, AIR 1990 SC 2205 . 15. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents. He submitted that Revisional Authority has considered evidence on record and passed order considering all issues at length. There was no error in the impugned order whereby orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation were set aside since they were contrary to record. Admission could not be a sole ground or basis to become owner of a land. 16. Learned counsel has submitted that, how co-tenancy Right were acquired was not described anywhere under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. However, Section 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 described acquisition of co-tenancy following:- Provided that no person shall be deemed to be co-tenant not withstanding that he may have shared of the tenancy, or has become such by succession, or has been specifically recognized as such in writing by land holder. 17. Learned counsel urged that, according to U.P. Tenancy Act, there are 3 ways to get co-tenancy. Firstly, disputed land was acquired by the common ancestor of both the party or their fore fathers and secondly, the landlord has arranged with both the parties or their fore fathers and thirdly if the land holder accepts the co-tenant in a written permission along with co-tenancy also gets through estoppal and acquiescence. According to petitioner, he has acquired co-tenancy right by admission of respondent No.1 who admitted co-tenants before the competent authority in accordance with law in proceeding of Tenant's Acquisition of Privilege Act. 18. According to petitioner, he has acquired co-tenancy right by admission of respondent No.1 who admitted co-tenants before the competent authority in accordance with law in proceeding of Tenant's Acquisition of Privilege Act. 18. Learned counsel further submitted that, it is not known from documents filed by the petitioner in relation to acceptance, before which court or officer the acceptance was given and by which Court it was admitted by respondent No.1. Bhumidhari Sanad which has been filed by petitioner was fictitious and not proved as per law. On basis of a fake admission and Sanad certificate and a categorical finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is to the following effect :- 19. It was also stated that mere possession of Bhumidhari Sanad would not be enough and it would not confer the status of Bhumidhari. He placed reliance on judgment passed in Smt. Ram Patti Devi and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others, AIR 1973 Allahabad 288. 20. It was also urged that, it is true that the entries in the revenue record ought to be accepted at their face value but the presumption of correctness of entries can apply only to genuine not forged or fraudulent entries fraud and forgery rob a documents of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. Any entry which is not prepared in accordance with law cannot confer any benefits to a party claiming the same merely because entry in the basis of so called Sanad which is also not proved nor having been made in accordance with the provisions. No benefit could be granted to the petitioner. 21. It was lastly urged that, khatauni in 1307 Foolmani W/o Bechai recorded in the main column according to petitioner. Foolmani was the wife of Bechai and Luttur was the son of Bechai but pedigree is not proved according to law. In the written statement before Consolidation Officer by the petitioner's father, earlier it was not mentioned that Luttur was son of Bechai. Later this part was increased without an amendment application in written submission. Apart from oral statement of father of petitioner there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that both parties are children of same common ancestor. Family register and electoral roll do not prove that Luttur is the son of Bechai. Later this part was increased without an amendment application in written submission. Apart from oral statement of father of petitioner there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that both parties are children of same common ancestor. Family register and electoral roll do not prove that Luttur is the son of Bechai. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Bhagwati Deen v. Sheetladin and others, 2022 (156) RD 602 ; Tauley v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1982 RD 327; Gurmukh Singh and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Nainital and others, 1997 (88) RD 276 and Udai (dead) Ram Lkhan (dead) Karedin and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 1990 RD 9 S.C. 22. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 23. It is a case where Revisional Authority has reversed the orders passed by Consolidation Officer as well as Appellate Authority. It is well settled that Revisional Authority under Section 48 of Act, 1953 has wide power to scrutinize the impugned order on anvil of it's regularity, correctness, legality and propriety. 24. As referred above, the Revisional Authority has returned a finding that on Bhumidhari Sanad no stamp was placed of the authority who has issued it. Revisional Authority has returned a finding that in absence of stamp, Sanad could not be considered to be a genuine document. 25. I have carefully perused the photocopy of Sanad which is placed on record during argument, that there was no stamp of the officer who has issued the Sanad. 26. The Revisional Authority has also returned a finding that petitioner was not able to brought on record any evidence that he belongs to family of Kavleshwar. It was also held that in the statement of Kavleshwar certain portions were added and Consolidation Officer has accepted said additions on the ground that initials were made by Advocate. However, Revisional Authority has held that such addition in the statement, in absence of any material document, could not be accepted and Consolidation Officer has committed error in accepting the same. In my considered opinion such disputed statement could not be made only basis to return a finding that Baleshar was part of family of Kavleshwar, therefore, in absence of other supporting evidence, doubt placed by authority on statement has an adverse impact on claim of petitioner. 27. In my considered opinion such disputed statement could not be made only basis to return a finding that Baleshar was part of family of Kavleshwar, therefore, in absence of other supporting evidence, doubt placed by authority on statement has an adverse impact on claim of petitioner. 27. Baleshar has not appeared before Consolidation Officer, which was considered to be an adverse to his case and Revisional Authority has specifically returned a finding that Baleshar ought to have come in dock to support his case. The best evidence was not brought on record. 28. Learned Senior Advocate has extraneously argued that Revisional Authority has not set aside the findings returned by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and also not recorded any reasons in support of order of reversal. He has placed reliance on Surendra Singh (supra) and Vidyacharan Shukla (supra), however, I do not find it was on specific issue of contents of judgments. In State of Punjab and others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, AIR 1984 SC 444 Supreme Court has observed that it is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. However, this judgment is also not applicable in the present case. It is trite law that a judgment should have reasons to support its finding. 29. In order to scrutinize the impugned order that it was accompanied by due reasons or not, I have carefully perused it and it has already been extensively reproduced in preceding paragraphs. In initial part facts of the case are mentioned in brief as well as referred documents relied upon by lower authorities, such as, Khatauni as well as statement of Kavleshwar, thereafter Revisional Authority has discussed why statement of Kavleshwar was doubtful and why lower authorities have wrongly relied upon and assigned reasons for it that, (Emphasis supplied) 30. A bare reading of aforesaid part of impugned order would satisfy that Revisional Authority has assigned reasons to support its conclusion that added statement of Kavleshwar was not sufficient to prove the case of petitioner. 31. That Revisional Authority has also returned a categorical finding that order dated 06.06.1951 by which name of Baleshar was added has not basis, i.e., no order was placed on record to support this order. No document to contradict above finding was placed before this Court. 31. That Revisional Authority has also returned a categorical finding that order dated 06.06.1951 by which name of Baleshar was added has not basis, i.e., no order was placed on record to support this order. No document to contradict above finding was placed before this Court. The Revisional Authority has held that, (Emphasis supplied) 32. On basis of above referred discussion and analysis, it could not be held that no reasons were assigned by the Revisional Authority rather on each issue the Revisional Authority has assigned reasons, therefore, argument of learned Senior Advocate fails. 33. At this stage, it would be apt to refer para 43 of this Court's judgment in Bhagwati Deen v. Sheetladin and others, 2022(7) ADJ 165 , relied by counsel for respondent, which is mentioned hereinafter: "43. It is equally settled that an entry in the revenue records do raise a presumption but the same is rebuttable in nature. Any entry which is not prepared in accordance with law cannot confer any benefit to a party claiming the same. In the instant case as both the SOC as well as the DDC have meticulously considered the submissions and the material available on record and had arrived at a finding that merely because of one entry in 1359 fasli which is also not proved nor having been made in accordance with the provisions contained under the Land Revenue Act as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, no benefit could be granted to the petitioner, thus, the third plea of the petitioner also fails and the Special Bench decision of Avdhesh Singh (Supra) also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Moreover, it could not be disputed that the respondents were granted bhumidhari rights after the application of the respondents under Rule 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings, Rules, 1954 was allowed." 34. On issue of 'admission', para 14 of Shiv Patta v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(122) RD 173 would be relevant, which is reproduced as under: "14. Statement of Shiv Patta for proving her relation with Jag Mohan was admissible in evidence under section 50 of the Evidence Act. It was corroborated with the extract of Pariwar Register. Ram Chandra Mishra, who was an independent witness of the village and was examined by the respondents admitted that Shiv Patta was the daughter of Algoo and sister of Jag Mohan. It was corroborated with the extract of Pariwar Register. Ram Chandra Mishra, who was an independent witness of the village and was examined by the respondents admitted that Shiv Patta was the daughter of Algoo and sister of Jag Mohan. Section 59 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provides that all facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence. An admission comes in three ways, i.e. the admissions which are admissible under sections 18 to 30 of the Evidence Act, admission in pleadings and admission in oral evidence of the witness in the Court. The admission of the categories falling under sections 18 to 30 of the Evidence Act are required to be proved according to the provisions enumerated therein. However adrnission of the pleadings and the witnesses can be directly relied upon as held by Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal v. United Bank of India [ (2000) 7 SCC 120 : AIR 2000 SC 2740 .] and Karam Kavahi v. Lal Chand Public Charritable Trust. [ (2010) 4 SCC 753 : AIR 2010 SC 2077 .] Thus any fact, which has come in the oral evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court can be relied upon/corroborated to record a finding. The evidence of Shiv Patta that she was sister of Jag Mohan has been admitted by the witness of the respondents, the Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in holdings that Shiv Patta was the sister of Jag Mohan. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given any reason to ignore these evidence on record." 35. As discussed above, the Court is of the considered opinion that Revisional Authority in its wide power as granted under Section 48 of Act, 1953 which also includes power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence, has examined evidence on record and returned a specific, categorical and reasoned finding that how appreciation of evidence and conclusion thereof by the lower authorities was contrary to evidence also. The Revisional Authority has also rightly rejected 'admission' since not only it was added subsequently but it was not supported by any independent material. In these circumstances, Bhumidhari Sanad also become doubtful as the same was not stamped. The above findings cannot be termed as perverse. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference. 36. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 37. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.